The Supreme Court straight granted one petition for review at its conference yesterday and made some other noteworthy rulings. With the court’s vacancy still unfilled, it was another conference with just six justices participating.
Review granted: another SB 1437 murder resentencing case
Senate Bill 1437 just keeps on giving, or, more accurately, keeps on taking the Supreme Court’s resources. (Two SB 1437 cases were argued just last month.) The court yesterday agreed to hear People v. Mares, in which a Second District, Division Two, Court of Appeal unpublished opinion partially affirmed the denial of a resentencing petition under Penal Code section 1172.6, part of the 2018 legislation that limited criminal liability for felony murder and eliminated it for murder under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine.
Division Two found insufficient evidence that the defendant had aided and abetted the fatal shooting of a police officer because he hadn’t “performed any acts to assist the shooting.” However, the appellate court also found there was substantial evidence to support the defendant’s conviction of attempted murder of three other officers at a later time. “[I]t can reasonably be inferred defendant tried to get the officers killed by leading them on a highly dangerous car chase,” the court concluded.
[February 27 update: Here is the issue as summarized by court staff (see here) — “Did substantial evidence support the trial court’s finding in resentencing proceedings under Penal Code section 1172.6 that defendant, who led police on a high speed chase with an armed passenger, intended to kill the pursuing police officers and was therefore liable for their attempted murders as an aider and abettor?”]
Racial Justice Act OSCs
The court issued orders to show cause, returnable in the superior court, in the pro pers’ habeas corpus petitions in In re Boone, In re Cummings, In re Rosell, and In re Williams, all involving claims under California’s Racial Justice Act (see here, here, and here).
In Boone, Rosell, and Williams, cause is to be shown “why petitioner is not entitled to the appointment of counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 1473, subdivision (e)(5) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an indigent petitioner who pleads a plausible allegation of a violation of the Racial Justice Act] in light of statistical data cited by petitioner demonstrating racial disparities in Three Strikes sentences imposed in Los Angeles County and to the disclosure of discovery pursuant to Penal Code, section 745, subdivision (d) [providing for the disclosure of evidence relevant to a potential violation of the Racial Justice Act in the possession or control of the state].” (Emphasis added.)
In Cummings, cause is to be shown why petitioner is not entitled to counsel and discovery “in light of statistical data cited by petitioner demonstrating racial disparities in Three Strikes sentences imposed in San Bernardino County.” (Emphasis added.)
The court has made many orders like this before. (See here and, recently, here.)
Parole hearing OSC
The court also issued an order to show cause in In re Poole, with cause to be shown in the superior court “why the relief prayed for by petitioners Ruben Stewart, Robert Truitt, and William Jones should not be granted on the ground that the Board of Parole Hearings’ authority over appointed attorneys violates petitioners’ statutory due process right to the effective assistance of counsel.”
Justice Kelli Evans was recused.
Small claims court grant-and-transfer
The court granted review in Brambila v. Superior Court and sent the case back to the Fifth District, which had summarily denied the incarcerated pro per plaintiff’s writ petition challenging the dismissal of his small claims case against the Fresno County Sheriff. The transfer order directs the appellate court to issue an order to show cause and to “reconsider the cause in light of Code of Civil Procedure sections 116.540, subdivision (f), 116.720, subdivision (a), and 116.798, subdivision (a)(1)-(2).”
Section 116.540(f) allows an incarcerated party to a small claims matter to not personally appear and instead submit declarations or have someone else appear on their behalf without compensation. Section 116.720(a) authorizes a non-appearing plaintiff to move to vacate the judgment. And section 116.798(a)(1)–(2) provides that a writ petition about a small claims division proceeding can be heard by a judge of the superior court appellate division or by the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.
The petition for review was a week late, but was filed by the Supreme Court with permission. (See: Getting relief for a late petition for review might not be a hopeless cause.)
Dissenting votes: delayed murder prosecution
Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. McInnis. The Fourth District, Division One, in a long 2-1 published opinion reversed the dismissal of a murder case, a prosecution that was initiated 27 years after the killing based on recent DNA evidence.
The Division One majority said, “In our justice system, a prosecutor may not ethically charge a defendant with a crime unless completely satisfied the People can promptly establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And the judicial branch is required by our constitution to give deference to that executive decision of when criminal charges should be filed.” Division One returned the case to the superior court to “reconsider whether pretrial dismissal is appropriate after properly balancing the harm to McInnis against the People’s strong justification for the delay and considering possible alternative remedies to mitigate the prejudice.”
The dissent asserted the new DNA evidence “simply adds underwhelming circumstantial evidence to an already existing pile.” She further disagreed based on legal authority “which not only permits, but requires, trial courts to conduct a comprehensive fact based inquiry, considering the particular circumstances of each individual case, and balancing justification and prejudice on a continuum, rather than in a strict binary fashion.”
Dissenting vote: dependency
The court denied review in In re F.T., but Justice Joshua Groban recorded a dissenting vote. In a 2-1 unpublished opinion, the Fourth District, Division Two, held an infant’s foster parents, who were de facto caregivers, lacked standing to appeal the denial of their petition to have a more permanent placement of the child with them.
The majority dismissed the appeal because “the caregivers here, as de facto parents, have no legally cognizable interest in the placement of the child.” The dissenting justice said, “This may be the first case in which a court has held that a person lacks appellate standing to challenge the denial of their properly filed section 388 petition,” but nonetheless concluded the denial of the petition should be affirmed.
Review denied: Sweden wins against (possibly) an AI brief
The Supreme Court denied review in Kingdom of Sweden v. Soliman. Sweden obtained an $84,057.95 judgment for failure to repay student loans and the Second District, Division Six, affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Before reaching the merits, Division Six scolded the pro per appellant for violating appellate procedure rules, like “includ[ing] alleged quotes from cases that do not contain the quoted language,” citing a “nonexistent” statute, and having “cites [that] do not support the propositions for which they are cited, and do not address the issues she cites them for.” The appellate court didn’t impose sanctions, only awarding Sweden its appellate costs.
Another no-ruling conference for anti-death-penalty writ petition
For (I believe) the eighth time, Office of the State Public Defender v. Bonta was on the court’s conference list without the conference producing a ruling, at least not yet. A few months ago, there was no indication of why the case had been listed for action at a conference, until the next day when no ruling, but a supplemental briefing order, appeared on the docket. (See here.)
It’s been almost 22 months since the filing of the OSPD writ petition that broadly attacks California’s death penalty system as racially discriminatory. Maybe the lack of action yesterday was because a majority has agreed on a ruling, but a separate statement isn’t quite ready for public view.
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were four criminal case grant-and-holds: one waiting for decisions in both People v. Mitchell (see here and here), which will be argued next month, and People v. Eaton (see here); two holding just for Eaton; and one more waiting for People v. Espino (see here).
